Ive been handed a design that has a particular header with style the type knocking out a rule like:
------ Text Content ------
Ive done this a couple times over the years but i was never happy with my solution. Usually it involved using numerous elements. Since these are headers id like to keep the markup as lean as possible.
My first thought this time around was to use box collapsing to my advantage: http://jsfiddle.net/cEcCL/
However there a are few problems here:
This relies on setting the background of the span to something opaque in order to knockout the line. Problem is most of these will probably be in the upper portion of the page where the gradient background hasnt yet faded to its solid
Actually i wasnt aware of this till i made the fiddle - the text seems slightly off center, not sure why that is.
While it can probably be managed, Im worried about the robustness of the vertical offsets to center the line on the median of the text line-box.. What if i have long header that goes to 2 lines?
Does anyone have any other ideas?
Here's a very quick example that uses a single h2 and the before/after pseudo elements.
h2:before, h2:after {
content:' '; display:inline-block;
height:0; width:100px;
border-top:1px solid black;
vertical-align:middle;
margin:0 1em
}
Obviously, there are some drawbacks:
No IE6/7 support
As it stands, you have to explicitly declare a width for the lines (but you might be able to mess with this)
Doesn't handle multiple lines too well, but again, you might be able to edit the h2 styles to make this work a little better
While not a perfect solution (I feel your pain here, this is a tough one), sometimes you can use background-attachment:fixed to remedy the background issue using the <span> technique if you are using a background image:
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/cEcCL/3/
<h2><span>Text Content</span></h2>
h2 span,
body{ /* Apply to h2 span and whatever the parent element is */
background:url(background.gif) fixed;
}
h2 {
line-height: 10px;
font-size: 18px;
text-align: center;
padding: 5px 0;
}
h2:after{
content:" ";
float:left;
border-bottom: 1px solid #000;
width:100%;
height:10px;
margin-top:-15px;
}
Of course this only works if the parent element can have a fixed background image, and won't work with CSS3 gradient backgrounds. It's a limited-use idea, but I just thought I'd bring it to light.
It seems only <legend> tags have this behavior, and I know of no way to emulate that with CSS, and I don't think you don't want to start using <legends> for headings...
Related
Is it possible to change the layout of a checkbox without adding the label tag in CSS?
Things like this do not have any effect:
input[type=checkbox][disabled] {
background-color: green;
border: 10px solid red;
}
The only thing I found so far is how to change the opacity.
I'm not sure if this will be much use to you, but it does allow you to "style up" a checkbox without the need for a label. I've remove the disabled flag so you can swap between the different styles. Shouldn't be difficult to add it back in if this will work for you.
Fiddle is here.
input[type=checkbox]:checked:before {
background-color: green;
border: 10px solid red;
}
input[type=checkbox]:before {
content:'';
display:block;
height:100%;
width:100%;
border: 10px solid green;
background-color: red;
}
The above only works on Chrome, however, it seems like Chrome is in the wrong where the specification is concerned.
A fuller answer here: CSS content generation before or after 'input' elements
As of today there is no solution, if we assume a cross browser functional styling, to style the <input type="checkbox" > alone, other than a few properties like opacity, width, height, outline (and maybe a few more).
Using a label (or other content elements) is what you need to do that and here is a good (which this question is likely a duplicate of) post with lots of options: How to style checkbox using CSS?
Note: If you know more properties, feel free to update this answer.
The basic idea is that I have a sidebar div tag that I have been tweaking with the CSS, and I want to do everything in the same place:
.sidebar{
border: solid;
float:left;
margin-right:-100px;
margin-top: -200px;
width:200px;
}
.sidebar h2{text-decoration:underline}
This is what the code looks like right now and it technically works but it looks like bad practice to me and I want to add the bottom bit that changes h2 to the main chunk on the top which has everything else in it but I don't know how to incorporate it.
I imagine that this is fairly straight forward and I'm just missing something.
I think what you're thinking about is using a CSS preprocessor that allows you to combine multiple child classes into one big class, giving it a nicer look and feel, like this:
.sidebar{
border: solid;
float:left;
margin-right:-100px;
margin-top: -200px;
width:200px;
h2
{
text-decoration:underline;
}
}
For this you can use LESS. More info on it here: LESS CSS
Question: Is the second OOCSS principle really valid?
According to the OOCSS second principle you're not supposed to have location dependent styles:
Quote from https://github.com/stubbornella/oocss/wiki
Essentially, this means “rarely use location-dependent styles”. An object should look the same no matter where you put it. So instead of styling a specific h2 with .myObject h2 {...}, create and apply a class that describes the h2 in question, like h2 class="category".
Lets take a practical example of this. Say I have a standard 2.0 setup with a normal body (white background) and a huge footer (black background). In the body we have black links and in the footer of course we need white. Isn't the simplest and most intuitive way to achieve this simply to:
a{ color: #000; }
.footer a{ color: #FFF; }
If I where to follow OOCSS principles I'd have to first create a class:
.inverted{ color: #FFF; }
Then proceed to add that class to every link I want inverted. That seems like a hassle.
Isn't the purpose of the whole language that styles are made to Cascade?
Am I misunderstanding something here?
I think you are right in the sense that yes, in your specific example.. perhaps doing it your way would be easier. But then again, if you look at the first sentence in the OOCSS page:
How do you scale CSS for thousands of pages?
In that context.. the second principle makes perfect sense.. so using your same example (ie let's assume we implemented your solution).. let's say that a year down the road your company decides to create light grey buttons in the black footer having black text:
<!-- inside footer -->
<a class="button lightGrey">link</a>
in this case.. all the a tags will be white because they're covered by your cascading. So then we will have to go create another sytle just to undo what your solution did:
.footer a.button.lightGrey {
color: #000; /* huh? but i thought we did this before with a {color: #000;} ?*/
}
where as if we simply made a decision that all a tags by default are black (see last note):
a{ color: #000; }
then in the footer we will create a special type of link that are supposed to be white:
.footerLinks { color: #FFF }
then a year later some of the links are still white.. others within the greyLight button will be black:
<a class="button lightGrey">link</a>
then here we don't have to worry about undoing anything.. a tags have a default color.. and that's it. if 2 years later someone decides that the links inside the lightGrey buttons (anywhere on the site, not only withen the footer.. which is the whole point of OOCSS) should be red.. then this would be the OOCSS approach:
.redLink {
color: red;
}
and the html will be
<a class="button lightGrey redLink">link</a>
in this case it won't matter if we take out the .lightGrey class, or we can have this code within or not within a footer .. it's all the same.. it results in more predictable and re-usable code.. which is OOCSS (I'm very glad that they're finally formalising this.. thanks a lot for the post btw).
One last note: To be pure OOCSS, one shouldn't change the default color of a ie a {color: #000;} is wrong!, it should be left to it's default color (which is blue).. whenever anyone wants to change that color.. then they must specify it ie
<a class="redLink">..</a>
so in this case it's more like the default a is the parent class.. and everything else subclasses it and overrides its default behaviour..
update - response to comments:
reputable site argument:
such initiatives are almost always driven by the community then adopted by reputable companies.. and even when they are adopted by larger companies it usually happens from the bottom up through enthusiastic developers who advocate for such change.. I for one was such an advocate when I was working in Amazon. And even when it's adopted.. it's usually at a small scale and not across all units in the org. it wouldn't even be a good idea for the Googles and the Amazons and the facebooks etc to enforce such a rule b/c there will always be a difference of opinion.. not to mention that such micromanagement would constrain the engineer's creativity.. there could be a guideline in a wiki for a team (ie we had one for the Amazon Kindle Touch app store) but to enforce that rule across 10,000 engineers working across the company wouldn't be practical nor desirable.
So in short if you see value in OOCSS, and start implementing on your site, and advocating it to your fellow web devs, and then it becomes a trend, that's when it eventually becomes an industry wide best practice and that's when you can expect to see it on facebook etc.
example:
take a look at this:
simple: http://jsfiddle.net/64sBg/
a bit more detailed: http://jsfiddle.net/64sBg/2/
without going too much detail (I'm sure you will see the pattern) you can see that the granularity in css descriptions allows for subtle changes without any redundancy in style definition. So notice the left arrow vs right arrow.. also the .red and .blue styles can be subsequently applied to tables etc..
also notice that there isn't a single cascading in my css.. so my styles can be completely independently applied (ie implementing the rule An object should look the same no matter where you put it)
lastly.. there is still use for cascading.. you can definitely use it in your jQuery selectors for example.. also cascading happens by default (ie without you having to explicitly set it in your css styles).. so if you take look at the css below.. you will notice that the font properties of body has cascaded down to all the buttons.
<a class="button blue dark">
<div class=" arrowDownWhite rightArrow">Analytics</div>
</a>
<a class="button red dark">
<div class=" arrowDownWhite leftArrow">Actions</div>
</a>
<a class="button grey light">
<div class=" arrowDownRed leftArrow">options</div>
</a>
and css:
body
{
font-family: Trebuchet MS,Liberation Sans,DejaVu Sans,sans-serif;
font-size: 15pt;
}
.button
{
padding: .5em 1em;
display: inline-block;
text-decoration: none;
}
.dark {
color: white;
}
.light{
color: #E40E62;
}
.blue
{
background-color: #51C8E8;
}
.red
{
background-color: #E40E62;
}
.grey
{
background-color: #E0E0E0 ;
}
.arrowDownWhite
{
background-image:url(http://s2.postimage.org/ywam7ec4l/small_Arrow_Down_White.png);
background-repeat:no-repeat;
}
.arrowDownRed
{
background-image:url(http://s2.postimage.org/je5743t2d/small_Arrow_Down_Red.png);
background-repeat:no-repeat;
}
.leftArrow
{
padding-left: 1em;
background-position: left center;
}
.rightArrow
{
padding-right: 1em;
background-position: right center;
}
It is worth the hassle of separating your skin from the container.
Lets look beyond colors. I wish Nicole Sullivan provided better examples than she does. I have 23 web sites that an contain
Menus
Tabs
Toolbars
Horizontal and Vertical Lists of Links
All of them are Skins of the Nav abstraction
I started off created an abstraction class to handle the common code between all of them. I added a few modifiers to change the orientation from horizontal to vertical, and also the floated position of it. I kept all colors out of the abstraction as well as css rules that can change based on the skin I apply to it.
/* Object */
.nav
{
margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 0; padding-left: 0; list-style: none;
}
/* Modifier */
.nav--stack .nav__item
{
display: block;
}
.nav--right
{
float: right;
}
/* Elements */
.nav__item
{
float:left
}
.nav__item__link
{
display:none;
}
Menu Skin
I needed a skin that made the .nav abstraction look like a sidebar menu. In case you are wondering, I did not put the padding for .nav_item_link above is because it can change based on the skin. The tabs skin has it set for 2px.
/* Object */
.menu
{
}
/* Elements */
.menu .nav__item--current.nav__item__link
{
color: #fff; background: blue;
}
.menu .nav__item__link
{
padding: 4px; border-radius: 4px;
}
.menu .nav__item__link:hover
{
background: #eee
}
Notice to keep things location-independent - I have 0 tag names. I don't style li and a children on .nav like bootstrap does. This code could be used on dls or even divs and has better performance based on how selector engines read rules.
To me the benefit of just having to skin the objects I have for all 23 sites I have is worth any hassle.
Really simple but very annoying issue - I have a form text box which has a button sitting along side it horizontally so they should both be aligned heights. I am adding a couple of pixels top and bottom padding but i cant get this to work cross browser - internet explorer in particular seems to double the padding for some reason.
Can some one offer advice on how to get buttons the exact same size in most major browsers.
Here is the css I am using for a button
.button {
color: #44444a;
cursor: pointer;
font-weight: bold;
overflow: visible;
padding: 0.1em 1em;
width: auto;
border: solid 1px #44444a;
}
Best advice I can offer based on the very limited information you have provided is:
1 - Ensure you have declared your doctype.
2 - Perform a CSS reset. Something like:
*{
margin:0;
padding:0;
}
Googling "CSS reset" will usually turn up something useful.
3 - Know your box-model!
It would be useful if you could perhaps provide us with a bit more information (HTML & CSS code) or a link to the offending page.
I have a CSS rule like this:
a:hover { background-color: #fff; }
But this results in a bad-looking gap at the bottom on image links, and what's even worse, if I have transparent images, the link's background color can be seen through the image.
I have stumbled upon this problem many times before, but I always solved it using the quick-and-dirty approach of assigning a class to image links:
a.imagelink:hover { background-color: transparent; }
Today I was looking for a more elegant solution to this problem when I stumbled upon this.
Basically what it suggests is using display: block, and this really solves the problem for non-transparent images. However, it results in another problem: now the link is as wide as the paragraph, although the image is not.
Is there a nice way to solve this problem, or do I have to use the dirty approach again?
Thanks,
I tried to find some selector that would get only <a> elements that don't have <img> descendants, but couldn't find any...
About images with that bottom gap, you could do the following:
a img{vertical-align:text-bottom;}
This should get rid of the background showing up behind the image, but may throw off the layout (by not much, though), so be careful.
For the transparent images, you should use a class.
I really hope that's solved in CSS3, by implementing a parent selector.
I'm confused at what you are terming "image links"... is that an 'img' tag inside of an anchor? Or are you setting the image in CSS?
If you're setting the image in CSS, then there is no problem here (since you're already able to target it)... so I must assume you mean:
<a ...><img src="..." /></a>
To which, I would suggest that you specify a background color on the image... So, assuming the container it's in should be white...
a:hover { background: SomeColor }
a:hover img { background-color: #fff; }
I usually do something like this to remove the gap under images:
img {
display: block;
float: left;
}
Of course this is not always the ideal solution but it's fine in most situations.
This way works way better.
a[href$=jpg], a[href$=jpeg], a[href$=jpe], a[href$=png], a[href$=gif] {
text-decoration: none;
border: 0 none;
background-color: transparent;
}
No cumbersome classes that have to be applied to each image. Detailed description here:
http://perishablepress.com/press/2008/10/14/css-remove-link-underlines-borders-linked-images/
Untested idea:
a:hover {background-color: #fff;}
img:hover { background-color: transparent;}
The following should work (untested):
First you
a:hover { background-color: #fff; }
Then you
a:imagelink:hover { background-color: inherit; }
The second rule will override the first for <a class="imagelink" etc.> and preserve the background color of the parent.
I tried to do this without the class="", but I can't find a CSS selector that is the opposite of foo > bar, which styles a bar when it is the child of a foo. You would want to style the foo when it has a child of class bar. You can do that and even fancier things with jQuery, but that may not be desirable as a general technique.
you could use display: inline-block but that's not completely crossbrowser. IE6 and lower will have a problem with it.
I assume you have whitespaces between <a> and <img>? try removing that like this:
<a><img /></a>
I had this problem today, and used another solution than display: block thanks to the link by asker. This means I am able to retain the link ONLY on the image and not expand it to its container.
Images are inline, so they have space below them for lower part of letters like "y, j, g". This positions the images at baseline, but you can alter it if you have no <a>TEXT HERE</a> like with a logo. However you still need to mask the text line space and its easy if you use a plain color as background (eg in body or div#wrapper).
body {
background-color: #112233;
}
a:hover {
background-color: red;
}
a img {
border-style: none; /* not need for this solution, but removes borders around images which have a link */
vertical-align: bottom; /* here */
}
a:hover img {
background-color: #112233; /* MUST match the container background, or you arent masking the hover effect */
}
I had the same problem. In my case I am using the image as background. I did the following and it resolved my problem:
background-image: url(file:"use the same background image or color");